In what context are you refering to the back button here...Lets say we have
two page instances of type "Page-A" through which we landed on "Page-B"
which has a back button on it, now clicking the back butoon should load the
"Page A" from the pageMap since its last accessed instance of Page-A...isnt
it ? Why do you say that pressing the back button once will load the page
from the disk...



Johan Compagner wrote:
> 
> if you press the back button only once then the page needs to come from
> disk.
> 
> So if your users never use the back button then yes you only need to have
> the last accessed page in the pagemap.
> 
> johan
> 
> On Nov 9, 2007 10:36 PM, mfs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>>
>> I agree..and i would say its mostly the nature of the applications which
>> would help determining whether storing the data in the wicket session
>> would
>> be a good idea or not...
>>
>> Further i believe that 99% of the times one just comes to the need of
>> accessing the last page-instances (lets say through back button link or
>> otherwise doing a refresh if on the same page)...i still couldnt think of
>> scenarios where the older page-instances (which are being serialized)
>> would
>> come to help...If someone could discuss/point some of those
>> sceanrio/use-cases..that would be helpful..and would be able to better
>> justify the wicket's default behavior of serializing.
>>
>> Thanks and Regards,
>>
>> Farhan.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gwyn wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > It's not hard to do it with Wicket, but I'm fairly sure that
>> > for the typical web-app, the metrics showed that the a re-request to
>> > database wasn't a big issue, whereas the gain in terms of reducing the
>> > session size was, especially where it needs replicating.
>> >
>> > As such, the recommendation is as it is, but it's not
>> > one-size-fits-all, and if you have a large enough percentage of
>> > non-DB-cachable operations in the DB-layer, you can store the results
>> > in the session, etc, without much of a problem.
>> >
>> > It's not going to be so built-in as to be trivial, though, as we want
>> > to make it clear that anyone doing that is going against the flow.
>> >
>> > On 09 November 2007, 9:03:31 AM, serban.balamaci wrote:
>> > sb> Most database expensive operations come from the result of stored
>> > sb> procedures(my current experience at least). A cache solution can be
>> > sb> implemented by caching the method results with spring(in case of
>> using
>> > sb> spring) but is a heavy(difficult) thing to maintain that "cache"
>> per
>> > user -
>> > sb> http session is a nice and easy storage for that-.
>> >
>> >
>> > sb> Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> You should use a second level cache to cache objects and queries
>> from
>> >>>> your database; and that's not Wicket's job, Wicket is a Web
>> framework.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> For example, use Hibernate + ehcache.
>> >>>
>> >>> Yep. That way you'll avoid redundancy in caching, and have caching
>> >>> regardless of whatever UI framework you're using. and using e.g.
>> >>> ehcache can do things for you like limit the RAM cache and overflow
>> to
>> >>> disk. Etc.
>> >>>
>> >>> Eelco
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > /Gwyn
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Disabling-serialization-storage-of-pages-in-session--tf4768006.html#a13675586
>> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at
>> Nabble.com<http://nabble.com/>
>> .
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Disabling-serialization-storage-of-pages-in-session--tf4768006.html#a13677131
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to